Standard matrix for reflection across the line y=-x

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the standard matrix for the reflection transformation across the line y = -x in R². Participants explore the implications of this transformation, including identifying invariant vectors and specific outputs for given inputs.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants attempt to derive the standard matrix by evaluating the transformation on basis vectors. Questions arise regarding the nature of invariant vectors under the transformation and the interpretation of specific outputs. Some participants express uncertainty about the requirements of the problem and the geometric implications of the reflection.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing their findings and questioning each other's reasoning. Some have provided insights into the geometric interpretation of the reflection, while others are still clarifying their understanding of the problem's requirements. There is no explicit consensus, but productive dialogue is evident.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express confusion about the problem's expectations, particularly regarding the identification of invariant vectors and the specific outputs of the transformation. The discussion reflects a mix of attempts and clarifications without resolving all uncertainties.

fattycakez
Messages
21
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let T : R2→R2, be the matrix operator for reflection across the line L : y = -x

a. Find the standard matrix [T] by finding T(e1) and T(e2)

b. Find a non-zero vector x such that T(x) = x

c. Find a vector in the domain of T for which T(x,y) = (-3,5)

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



a. I found [T] =
0 -1
-1 0

b. I'm not really sure what this is asking. Do I just pick a random x = (x1,x2)
and then plug in T(x) = x?

c. T(-3, 5) would be (-5, 3). Is that what the question is asking? Is (-5, 3) in the domain of T?

Help me, I'm stupid :D
 
Physics news on Phys.org
a. I got ##\Big( \begin{matrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{matrix} \Big)##

b. you want to find a vector that the matrix doesn't move. So you don't pick a random one, you start with T(x, y) = (x, y) & then find a vector that satisfies that equation.

c. that's right
 
fattycakez said:

Homework Statement


Let T : R2→R2, be the matrix operator for reflection across the line L : y = -x

a. Find the standard matrix [T] by finding T(e1) and T(e2)

b. Find a non-zero vector x such that T(x) = x

c. Find a vector in the domain of T for which T(x,y) = (-3,5)

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



a. I found [T] =
0 -1
-1 0

I agree.

b. I'm not really sure what this is asking. Do I just pick a random x = (x1,x2)
and then plug in T(x) = x?

If you think geometrically about the reflection you are given, isn't it pretty clear which points wouldn't move?

c. T(-3, 5) would be (-5, 3). Is that what the question is asking? Is (-5, 3) in the domain of T?

Yes.
 
Thanks guys!
fourier jr said:
a. I got ##\Big( \begin{matrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{matrix} \Big)##

b. you want to find a vector that the matrix doesn't move. So you don't pick a random one, you start with T(x, y) = (x, y) & then find a vector that satisfies that equation.

c. that's right
How did you get that matrix?

LCKurtz said:
I agree.
If you think geometrically about the reflection you are given, isn't it pretty clear which points wouldn't move?
Yes.
After fiddling with some numbers to try to get it to work I got T(-1, 1) = (-1, 1) which would be a point on the line y = -x so I guess all the points on the line wouldn't move obviously right?
 
fattycakez said:
After fiddling with some numbers to try to get it to work I got T(-1, 1) = (-1, 1) which would be a point on the line y = -x so I guess all the points on the line wouldn't move obviously right?

Fiddling?? Do you mean guessing? Experimenting?? What happens to any point on the line ##y=-x## when you reflect it in that line? Or if you solve$$
\begin{bmatrix}
0& -1\\
-1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} a\\b\end{bmatrix} =
\begin{bmatrix} a\\b\end{bmatrix}
$$for ##a## and ##b##? No guesswork needed.
 
Last edited:
LCKurtz said:
Fiddling?? Do you mean guessing? Experimenting?? What happens to any point on the line ##y=-x## when you reflect in in that line? Or if you solve$$
\begin{bmatrix}
0& -1\\
-1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} a\\b\end{bmatrix} =
\begin{bmatrix} a\\b\end{bmatrix}
$$for ##a## and ##b##? No guesswork needed.
It reflects onto the line but in the opposite quadrant?
 
No. Think of your line as a mirror. Any point some distance away on one side of the mirror reflects to appear the same distance away on the other side of the mirror. What about a paint dot right on the mirror. Where does its reflection appear to be?
 
LCKurtz said:
No. Think of your line as a mirror. Any point some distance away on one side of the mirror reflects to appear the same distance away on the other side of the mirror. What about a paint dot right on the mirror. Where does its reflection appear to be?
It doesn't move then right? Its reflection is on its original location?
 
fattycakez said:
How did you get that matrix?

Never mind I did the matrix for the wrong transformation o0) it made sense at the time anyway
 
  • #10
Here's how I would do that problem: Any 2 by 2 matrix can be written as \begin{bmatrix}a &amp; b \\ c &amp; d \end{bmatrix}. "Reflecting about the line y= -x" the vector <1, 0> is mapped into < 0, -1> and the vector <0, 1> is mapped into <-1, 0>.

So we must have \begin{bmatrix}a &amp; b \\ c &amp; d \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}1 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ -1\end{bmatrix} and \begin{bmatrix}a &amp; b \\ c &amp; d \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 1 \end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix} -1 \\ 0\end{bmatrix}.

Doing the matrix multiplications on the left and setting the components equal to the right gives you four equations to solve for a, b, c, and d.
 
  • #11
fattycakez said:
It doesn't move then right? Its reflection is on its original location?
Right. So for that reflection, it's pretty obvious geometrically which points in ##R^2## give ##T(x) = x##.
 
  • #12
LCKurtz said:
Right. So for that reflection, it's pretty obvious geometrically which points in ##R^2## give ##T(x) = x##.
Cool thanks, that makes sense! I learned everything I know about math from U of A, its not my fault :D
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K